There's already a thread on this.

The question to answer is whether Div 1 and Div 2 is a District competition where teams represent an area (zone) of Adelaide, or whether Div 1 and Div 2 is a team based competition.

I think your incorrect Jack in asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is does E really =MC²

According to the by laws this was to be inforced in the 2009/10 season-yeah right that really happened.

how many more times do we need to go through this ?

it is supposed to be u12 and 14s this year - but the u12 side of things did not work - u12 g div 2 comp only had 6-7 teams if eagles did not field a second.

all this is doing is killing off participation not balancing it.

and teh waffle about zoning will never happen

and there will be very lop sided results in div 3........

jack - if it was district based we would have stadiums evenly balanced out across the burbs.

they are not - so it is club based.

maybe we need to change the name from "distict" to SAJBL - this will alleviate any confusion.

pro / rel across the board IMO

anon #327479,

The problems is people like you try and corretale directly between SANFL clubs and District clubs.

SANFL club dont make money from junior membership fees and the competition does not make money from junior game fees. In basketball we do.

SANFL clubs do not recruit players into football, that is done at school and club level, they just take the better players from these teams. In basketball clubs must recruit. And some do this better than others.

Hence, some clubs dont even field teams in div 2 grades. And have other more than enough. People are concerned that dropping double div 2 teams has not moved kids from 1 club to another, but rather moved them out of the sport. If the current trend continues at U12 levels though, BSA and the clubs will be pretty much broke.

SANFL clubs recieve massive amounts of funding from television coverage. This, and pokies help them stay financially stable. Basketball has neither of these.

Finally, we are an international sport, and our teams compete directly against interstate teams. You would be better of comparing basketball to soccer which has pro/rel in all comps locally and internationally outside of the A league (our NBL/WNBL).

"."

In fact the stadiums are pretty much as balanced as they can be around this fine city. There's a certain resemblance to SANFL Footy locations + Mavs.

Let's have a look.

Mavs: Based at Mt Barker, 34.8 km from CBD. Feed from the Local Council Area (LCA) of Adelaide Hills; Mt Barker; Strath; Murray Bridge. Population Base of around 90,000 with plenty of young families. (No real SANFL equivalent)
Tigers: In City of Onkaparinga. 27 km from CBD. CofO with Population of 152,000. Growing area. (SANFL equivalent of South?)
Lions: Based at Gawler, 38.7 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Gawler, Playford, Light, Barossa + Northern Country. Population base of 150,000 (SANFL equivalent of Centrals)
West: Pt Adelaide, 14 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Pt Adelaide/Enfield; Part of Salisbury. Population to draw from 143,000. (SANFL equivalent of Port)
North: Hillcrest, 11 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of TTG; Prospect; Parts of PtA/E, AHC & Playford. Population draw 135,000. (SANFL equivalent of North)
Woodville: St Clair, 8 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Charles Sturt; part West Torrens. Population of 125,000. (SANFL equivalent of WWT/West)
Norwood: 7 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Campbeltown; Norwood; Walkerville; Burnside. Population draw of 120,000. (SANFL equivalent of Norwood)
South: 13 km from CBD, Draw from LCA of Holdfast Bay; Marion. Population of 114,000. (SANFL equivalent of South/West)
Sturt: 8 km from CBD, but 6 km from South. Draw from LCA of Mitcham. Population of 60,000. (SANFL equivalent of Sturt)
Forestville. 3 km from CBD. Draw from Unley and assume West Torrens. Population of 88,000. (SANFL equivalent of Sturt + West?)

There has been a lot of talk about West and Woodville being too close together, yet no-one talks about Port and WWT being too close. If anything, Sturt/Forestville are the ones too close. Forestville used to be West Torrens when I played for them and today, a kid living at Underdale like me would probably play for West or Woodville rather than Forestville.

I think my old club is actually the odd ones out here!

So you are saying that Sturt would have the smallest boundry.

a/ because their council is the smallest, and

b/ becasue Forestville are encroaching on their area.

But yet they have the bast results fo any club.

This surely shows that zones arent the answer, bacuse Sturt and Forestville have more eams than other clubs and they sit ontop of each other.

In fact it just shows how critical zoning is. How many Sturt players live in their area?

That would depend on whether zones would be considered equal. Most of Sturt players come from close by.

But like all clubs, due to friendships, past affiliation and market forces, some players come from outisde what would be their zone.

Surely your not advocating that some clubs should have smaller zones than others?

If they went by current football zones, most of Easten and half of Forestville would be playing at Sturt.

Looking at population in each area is one thing, but surely a better indication would be the number of schools and how many attendees these have.
After all, I can't see too many recruits coming from the local retirement village, or the nearby nursing home.

Mention is made of the close SANFL proximity of Port Adelaide and WWT, but don't forget where WWT originated from (2 clubs with a close proximity to each other). The merger worked for WWT resulting in a competitive club and a premiership, bit Port Magpies have suffered for quite awhile before having some better results this year. They also rely strongly on their country recruiting "zones" --there goes that word again!

They dont recruit players into the sport. THey just recruit from their zone. Basketball cant do that because we dont have school and domestic comeptitions underpinning our district competition.

And they dont have to have junior players fee to pay for their senior players like basketball do.

It will make players move in the age group affected. Like the best player in Australia moving to Centrals.

former eagle your geography is out if you think satdiums are evenly balanced over metro / fringe adelaide.

2 in NW corner , 2 in NE corner, 1 far metro north, 1 central, one inner south, 1 sw and one deep south.

big gaps around gepps cross / salisbury / greenwith, mid west, east.

we seem to have stadiums clumped west/ wood, norwood / north, fville / sturt / south.

Which 20-30 years ago may have been a bit more better located........

When did West move to Port Adelaide? Was it less than 20 years ago and saw an opportunity in a new area?
Where was Woodville 20 years? Did they exist or was there just Cheltenham BC running Social teams from St Clair?
We certainly know that there was no Magic at that time, but the North west seems cluttered now.

So anon,

why hasnt this happened in U12's, where only 6 clubs nominated girls teams and 9 clubs boys.

all it is doing is decreasing the number of players in the sport. and therefore the overall standard of the players

obviously there isnt that many U12's travelling across the state to play.

that tends to happen in U16s and U18s. for all clubs.

the sooner people accept that zoning and single div 1 doesnt work the better. it is an unsound theory.

all it will do is decrease the level of the competition and the number of participants

if you are going to get on the equality bandwagon - why not have pro / rel across the board ?

that way always the best teams regardless of club make the most competitive grade.

so what's the pt in only 1 div2 per club - trying to get everyone to go play for Woodville???

I can tell you right now when sturt had 2 div 1 teams a few years ago - it was the only time we could beat them regularly in Div 1 comp - they were around 2-3rd and 5th-6th.

since it has gone to one team - forget it.

pro / rel across the board.

it wont hurt for the teams to earn their spots in higher divs

I'm not familiar with all the grades, but am currently involved in the under 14 div 2 boys. Looking at who will be making finals, sturt 2, Norwood blue, Norwood red, and the last sport looking like going to south, sturt 1 missing out due to head to head comparrison, even though they have a higher percentage. I hate to think about how skewed div 3 is going to be next year if both sturt and Norwood have to drop their second div 2 team to div 3.... Especially when some teams in the div 2 grade have struggled to get a percentage of 30+ by season end. I'm for pro/rel across the board.

I'm not sure on either clubs numbers, but you would think they would be able to have a similar outcome next year... Either that or the problem just moves to the 16s age group. Competitive games are the best ones, in terms of keeping kids interest in the sport as well as encouraging their development. I just hope we don't see competitions develop next year which lack a competitive edge- especially in an age group which tends to have such a high level of participation.

u16s will still be 2 div 2 teams in 2011/12